AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D vs Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D versus the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both sides are zero. Consequently, direct comparative performance measurements from the same benchmark suite are not available in the database.

Without those direct measurements, the analysis must rely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers a FP32 compute rating of 24.82 TFLOPS, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part at approximately 13.85 times the FP32 throughput of the Intel part, a substantial compute gap that reflects the different product classes. The AMD part also produces a pixel rate of 193.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 387.8 GTexel/s, versus 28.00 GPixel/s and 56.00 GTexel/s for the Intel part. In pixel throughput, the AMD part is roughly 6.93 times higher, and in texture throughput it is roughly 6.93 times higher as well. These ratios follow from the recorded numbers and indicate a consistent, large performance separation across the primary rasterization and compute metrics.

The FP16 comparison is more nuanced. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D lists FP16 at 24.82 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it does not gain extra throughput by switching to half precision. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile lists FP16 at 3.584 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 rate is double its FP32 rate. Even with that doubling, the AMD part still holds a 6.93 times advantage in FP16 throughput. The Intel part's 2:1 FP16 ratio is a notable feature for workloads that can use half precision, but it does not close the gap to the AMD part's absolute throughput.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores or percentile rankings beyond the baseline 50th percentile assigned to all GPUs in the database. The average benchmark score for both is zero, so the percentile field carries no discriminating information here. The head-to-head benchmark array being empty means no win totals exist to report. The data therefore points to a specification-level comparison rather than a measured performance comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D wins on every recorded quantitative performance metric. It has higher FP32 throughput (24.82 TFLOPS versus 1.792 TFLOPS), higher FP16 throughput (24.82 TFLOPS versus 3.584 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (193.9 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (387.8 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s). It also carries 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel part uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. For any workload that depends on dedicated memory capacity or sustained memory bandwidth, the AMD part is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile wins in the categories of power draw and integration. Its TDP is 65 W, compared to 150 W for the AMD part. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it requires no separate card slot and no external power connectors. The AMD part is a single-slot add-in board with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Intel part also has a lower base clock of 300 MHz versus 1080 MHz, and a lower boost clock of 1750 MHz versus 2020 MHz, which contributes to its lower power envelope. For systems where a discrete GPU cannot be installed, the Intel part is the only one of the two that fits the IGP form factor.

The Intel part also has a higher FP16 to FP32 ratio (2:1 versus 1:1), which means it can process half-precision workloads at twice its FP32 rate. That ratio is a functional advantage in mixed-precision scenarios, even though the absolute FP16 throughput remains far below the AMD part. The AMD part's 1:1 ratio means no such doubling occurs, so FP16 workloads on the AMD part run at the same rate as FP32 workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different manufacturers, different foundries, and different process nodes. The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D uses the Navi 48 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process. It contains 53,900 million transistors on a 357 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 151.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile uses the Meteor Lake chip built on Xe-LPG architecture, fabricated by Intel on a 10 nm process. The database does not record transistor count, die size, or transistor density for the Intel part.

The execution resources differ sharply. The AMD part has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation units. It also has 48 ray tracing cores. The Intel part has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, with no ray tracing cores recorded. The AMD part therefore has 6 times the shading units, 6 times the texture mapping units, and 6 times the raster operation units of the Intel part, matching the approximate 6.93 times advantage seen in the rate metrics when clock speeds are considered.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The AMD part uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 2250 MHz, listed as 18 Gbps effective. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated memory clock. This means the AMD part's memory performance is fixed and independent of the host system, while the Intel part's memory performance depends entirely on the host platform's memory configuration.

The interface also differs. The AMD part connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Intel part connects via Ring Bus. Display output on the AMD part is a single DisplayPort 2.1a connector. The Intel part lists portable device dependent display outputs, meaning its display capabilities vary by the device it is integrated into.

API support differs in DirectX. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD part's DirectX 12 Ultimate designation includes feature level 12_2, which is a higher feature level than the Intel part's 12_1.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD part has a base clock of 1080 MHz, a boost clock of 2020 MHz, and a game clock of 1080 MHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1750 MHz, with no game clock recorded. The AMD part's boost clock is 270 MHz higher than the Intel part's, and its base clock is 780 MHz higher.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D delivers 24.82 TFLOPS FP32, while the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile delivers 1.792 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How much memory does each part have?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 1x 16-pin power connector with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a TDP of 65 W and uses no external power connectors.

Q: Does either part support ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has 48 ray tracing cores. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has no ray tracing cores recorded in the database.

Q: What DirectX versions are supported?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: Which part has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D has a boost clock of 2020 MHz. The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile has a boost clock of 1750 MHz.

The Verdict

The recorded data places the AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D in a different performance class from the Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile. Every quantitative performance metric in the database favors the AMD part: FP32 throughput is 24.82 TFLOPS versus 1.792 TFLOPS, FP16 throughput is 24.82 TFLOPS versus 3.584 TFLOPS, pixel rate is 193.9 GPixel/s versus 28.00 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 387.8 GTexel/s versus 56.00 GTexel/s. The AMD part also has 32 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, 48 ray tracing cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. Any workload that requires high compute throughput, high memory bandwidth, or ray tracing capability should use the AMD part according to the data.

The Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile is the appropriate choice in a narrower set of conditions. It consumes 65 W versus 150 W, it is an integrated processor with no slot requirement and no external power connector, and it connects via Ring Bus rather than PCIe 5.0 x16. For portable devices or systems where a discrete add-in board cannot be installed, the Intel part is the only viable option of the two. Its FP16 to FP32 ratio of 2:1 also gives it a relative efficiency advantage in half-precision workloads, even though the absolute FP16 throughput is far lower.

The production status for both parts is listed as Active. The AMD part has a release date of 2025-12-10, while the Intel part has a release date of 2023-12-13. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database, and neither has recorded benchmark scores. The selection between the two depends on the system form factor and the performance requirements: the AMD part for discrete, high-throughput compute and rendering, the Intel part for integrated, low-power mobile graphics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon AI PRO 9600D | Intel Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile |

|---|---|---|

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Chip | Navi 48 | Meteor Lake |

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Xe-LPG |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 53,900 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 357 mm² | Not recorded |

| Transistor Density | 151.0M / mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 1080 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2020 MHz | 1750 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1080 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | Not recorded |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 512 |

| TMUs | 192 | 32 |

| ROPs | 96 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | Not recorded |

| Pixel Rate | 193.9 GPixel/s | 28.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 387.8 GTexel/s | 56.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 24.82 TFLOPS | 1.792 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 24.82 TFLOPS (1:1) | 3.584 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | Not recorded |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x DisplayPort 2.1a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2025-12-10 | 2023-12-13 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | HD Graphics-M |